This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2012-02-07 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| In People v. Leviste,[30] we stressed that the State, like any other litigant, is entitled to its day in court; in criminal proceedings, the public prosecutor acts for and represents the State, and carries the burden of diligently pursuing the criminal prosecution in a manner consistent with public interest.[31] The State's right to be heard in court rests to a large extent on whether the public prosecutor properly undertook his duties in pursuing the criminal action for the punishment of the guilty.[32] | |||||
|
2008-08-06 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| While it is true that any motion that does not comply with the requirements of Rule 15 should not be accepted for filing and, if filed, is not entitled to judicial cognizance, however, this Court has likewise held that where a rigid application of the rule will result in a manifest failure or miscarriage of justice, technicalities may be disregarded in order to resolve the case.[16] Besides, in the exercise of its equity jurisdiction, the court may disregard procedural lapses, so that a case may be resolved on its merits based on the evidence presented by the parties.[17] Moreover, under the above-cited Rule, the Court is granted the authority to set the hearing on shorter notice upon showing of good cause. | |||||
|
2006-04-19 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| As a rule, the grant or denial of a motion for postponement is addressed to the sound discretion of the court, which should always be predicated on the consideration that more than the mere convenience of the courts or of the parties in the case, the ends of justice and fairness should be served thereby. After all, postponements and continuances are part and parcel of our procedural system of dispensing justice."[40] When no substantial rights are affected and the intention to delay is not manifest with the corresponding motion to transfer the hearing having been filed accordingly, it is sound judicial discretion to allow the same to the end that the merits of the case may be fully ventilated.[41] Thus, in considering motions for postponements, two things must be borne in mind: (1) the reason for the postponement, and (2) the merits of the case of the movant.[42] Unless grave abuse of discretion is shown, such discretion will not be interfered with either by mandamus or appeal.[43] | |||||
|
2003-04-01 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| Express consent to a provisional dismissal is given either viva voce or in writing. It is a positive, direct, unequivocal consent requiring no inference or implication to supply its meaning.[7] Where the accused writes on the motion of a prosecutor for a provisional dismissal of the case No objection or With my conformity, the writing amounts to express consent of the accused to a provisional dismissal of the case.[8] The mere inaction or silence of the accused to a motion for a provisional dismissal of the case[9] or his failure to object to a provisional dismissal[10] does not amount to express consent. | |||||